Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget Measures) Bill 2006, which is a mouthful but is an omnibus bill which implements two of the government’s budget commitments and proposes a series of new measures to crack down on social security fraud and improve information exchange between social security agencies.

Labor supports the budget measures contained in the bill which will make changes to the assets test for people of pension age living in rural and regional areas and implement changes to crisis payment provisions. We also support the proposals to improve information exchange between social security agencies. I notice that the government has now circulated in the chamber an amendment to the bill which seeks to oppose its own schedule 2 in the bill. I am very pleased to see that it has done that. This gives effect to Minister Hockey’s public announcement. That schedule proposed giving Centrelink officers search and seizure powers to raid the homes of social security recipients, which of course includes nearly every family in Australia, given the family payments system. It was bad law and terrible policy and I am pleased to see the government has recognised this.

In terms of schedule 1, Labor believes in a retirement income system which is secure, stable, simple and fair. We remain strongly committed to a means-tested age pension system which guarantees a decent retirement income to older Australians on the basis of need. We recognise there are problems in the existing system, in particular under the existing assets test, which disadvantage pensioners or potential pension recipients who are living on the land. Under the existing assets test many older Australians living on farms or large rural residential blocks find themselves unable to support themselves in retirement. This is because the value of the property their home is on excludes them from the pension. Many of these older Australians have been forced to sell their land and their family homes in order to support themselves. That is clearly not desirable.

Labor believes that older Australians should not have to sell their family homes, where they have spent the best part of their lives, in order to fund their retirement. So we support these government changes to the assets test. We think they are an improvement and will exempt property on the same title as the primary residence from the assets test. They will do so in cases where there is a long-term attachment to that land and where it would be unreasonable to realise the value of the land by selling or leasing it. We also have problems in relation to a number of holiday home issues, which have been raised with me and are the subject of a debate another day, but I think we are struggling with a policy to deal with the increasing asset values, given the boom in housing and land prices. The government is promoting this as an equity measure to address concerns that people of pension age living on farms and rural residential properties are unfairly excluded from receiving the age pension. People living in urban areas whose properties have substantially increased in value may remain exempt by virtue of the property being the primary residence. So I think the proposition is reasonable.

There is an issue that I will be taking up by way of an amendment to this bill, which is to address a concern that has been raised by my constituents in Western Australia that is largely as a result of the skills crisis in this country. A number of pensioners who have approached me are disadvantaged under the current assets test as a result of the Howard government’s failure to properly address the skills shortage. Under the current arrangements, a person has 12 months to sell their existing home and construct a new home before the proceeds of the sale of the existing home become an assessable asset. Because of the huge skills shortage, and therefore the delay in building completion dates—particularly in states like Western Australia, which are enjoying enormous economic growth—a number of people have been unable to get their home completed within the 12-month time frame. Their stories of waiting for tradesmen to turn up are legendary. I know it is an issue in Canberra as well, although not with a pensioner; one member of my staff moans long and loud about those problems. We are concerned about the impact on pensioners if that delay forces them to be caught up by the assets test. I will be moving an amendment about that in the committee stage, to try to get government support for that proposition. I hope the government considers the issue seriously because it seems to me to be a growing problem.

While Labor support schedules 1, 3 and 4, we could not have supported the passage of schedule 2 of the bill, given the damning evidence presented at the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry into this part of the bill. I am glad to see the government, too, will be opposing that part of their bill. The schedule would have given Centrelink officers the power to enter and search premises, including the homes of social security recipients, and seize material relevant to offences committed against social security law. Frankly, this measure should never have come before the parliament. It was bad policy and it would have been even worse law. The Senate legal and constitutional committee’s report, handed down last week, was damning of how poorly thought through this part of the legislation was. I would like to thank Senator Ludwig, who on behalf of the Labor opposition sought to forensically go through the arguments for this schedule and, I think, by virtue of his questioning and research prove that the case was not made.

The committee found that the proposed measures were unsupported by clear evidence and disproportionate to the likely degree of intrusion which would have been likely to result from the powers. The committee also found that many fundamental aspects of the supporting framework to the powers had not been fully considered before the legislation was introduced. The committee considered that issues had not been adequately thought through, and these included issues of training and recertification of officers exercising the powers and the absence of governance, accountability and oversight mechanisms and procedures for handling evidence and other operational guidelines.

Further, the committee was of the view that powers of entry, search and seizure are most appropriately exercised by the AFP, yet the inquiry heard that FaCSIA and Centrelink had not bothered to consult the AFP about the proposals to provide these powers for Centrelink officers. In its submission and evidence to the inquiry, FaCSIA claimed that one of the reasons Centrelink officers needed these powers was that the AFP was too busy to help out with social security cases. This turned out to be complete nonsense, and the AFP disputed FaCSIA’s claim in its evidence to the inquiry.

To back up their claim for unusual additional powers, the agencies were relying on a letter written by the Commissioner of the AFP five years ago which noted that terrorism was the priority work area. I agree that terrorism is the priority work area for the AFP, but that does not justify this sort of legislative proposal. The agencies had not bothered to consult with the Federal Police in recent times, and the AFP told the inquiry that they could meet their obligations to enforce social security requirements. This was not important to the government, which brought on this legislation seeking substantial new powers despite a range of flaws, a lack of planning or demonstrated need, and without proper accountability and oversight provisions. The committee’s report also expressed concerns that adequate information about schedule 2 had only been made available by FaSCIA and Centrelink ‘after persistent questioning by the committee’. Moreover, when this information was provided, the committee was hampered in its work by ‘the brevity and, in many cases, contradictory nature of much of the information provided’.

The committee also expressed concern at the apparent inability of FaCSIA and Centrelink to provide accurate statistics and background information to support their arguments. I want to make it clear that this was not a partisan view; this was a view expressed by all members of the committee. There was concern about how the executive was acting in seeking to get legislative support for a case that was not made.

I think the affair reflects very badly on the government, on its incompetence and, I think, growing contempt for the legislative process. I am particularly concerned that this reflects a trend that we are starting to see in the Senate, where the government’s recognition that it has the Senate numbers is leading it to put up more and more poorly thought through, poorly drafted and poorly constructed legislation because it knows it can drive it through the chamber. We have had a number of instances recently where legislation which would not meet the most basic of tests has been brought before the parliament, most of it rammed through on the basis of the government’s numbers. Its legislation would never have passed the previous Senate, not because of the politics of the issues but because of the Senate’s view that the legislation would have needed to be justified and effective, and we would have made sure it was tested against proper requirements for legislation.

I think the government is growing lazy and complacent in dealing with legislation given its control of the Senate and that is now creeping into the bureaucracy’s view of what is achievable. Any seemingly half-baked idea now seems to get presented as legislation before the Senate. Much of it is unjustifiable and poorly drafted. So I think it is an issue that the Senate ought to take very seriously, not just on this occasion.

I pay tribute to the coalition members of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee who, on this occasion, were prepared to say, ‘Hang on, this is a nonsense. This is not justifiable and it ought not be supported.’ Unfortunately, on many occasions coalition senators have not been able to express those views, even when honestly held, because of their commitment to the government. I understand the pressures they are under but I think that they too are starting to realise that they are being asked to rubber-stamp legislation that should not be passed by the Senate, and I think that a number of them are feeling constrained in their roles as a result of what the executive is asking them to support.

Schedule 2 was so bad that government senators joined with opposition senators in making it clear that it should not be supported. I think it is important that the Senate continues to play that role and that all senators take that role seriously. I think that should act as a warning to the government, particularly following on from the Crimes Amendment (Bail and Sentencing) Bill 2006, which allegedly was to deal with Indigenous people using a cultural defence. Again, we saw that that was quickly and poorly drafted legislation where the government had a publicity idea, reflected it in a hastily drafted bill, were in the embarrassing position of being in the chamber arguing for the removal of customary defences by all persons using customary or cultural defence and then found that they had only removed it from two sections of the bill, not all three. That is how slapdash it was. So I think that we have to ensure that the Senate does exercise great caution over the bills that we are asked to pass, and I urge coalition senators to continue to take that role seriously.

Labor supports the rest of the measures in the bill, including those to deal with crisis payments. Those payments are currently available to victims of domestic or family violence if they are forced to leave their home and establish a new home as a result of the violence. Extending eligibility for crisis payments to those who remain in their own home after the perpetrator has left or has been removed, recognises that violence may trigger financial crisis even when the victim remains in the home.

The bill also proposes a series of changes to social security legislation to enhance information sharing between agencies, and we would support that. However, we do believe that the changes to information exchange arrangements should be implemented in consultation with the federal Privacy Commissioner. We note that Centrelink is currently not required to inform people when their carers payment is about to be cut off and we believe that they should be required to do so. We also question the government’s projected savings of $131.8 million from this measure. The extent to which these savings will be realised is questionable, given the government’s savings projections of this nature are notoriously unreliable. It seems that alleged social security fraud savings come up every year—it seems to be a bottomless pit of savings—but I am certainly getting a bit cynical about it.

In conclusion, Labor supports the measures in the bill. We think they are worthy of support by the Senate. We are very pleased that the government has backed down over the search and seizure powers. I pay credit to the members of the Legal and Constitutional Committee for their work in bringing the government to the realisation of how poor their proposals were and, because of the government’s support for opposing scheduled 2, Labor will be supporting the bill.